Judge rejects right-to-die delay

[Mrs. Tuberski]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Ummmm what? Nowhere in that did I say she's feeling physical pain in her condition. Nice try, though.

If she doesn't feel pain, then the argument some people have about the horrors of her "starving to death" are just meaningless hyperbole. Thanks for demolishing their argument.

who said anything about physical pain the fact that she is going to have to live for about two weeks with no nutrients and then die is what I was talking abput

[Drake Tungsten]

Of, and tubes me boy, if she is vegetative, she won;t suffer when the tube is pulled. IN fact, neither state should make a damn bit of difference if you are right. So what are you arguing exactly?

Another person who can't understand a simple argument. I was wondering when you'd make an appearance...

[Sava]

Originally posted by Tuberski


You guys are ignoring the facts, you tried to use a strawman by saying she is suffering, but won't suffer when starved to death.

I didn't ignore facts. You failed to present any.

ACK!

All you've proved is that you are incapable of thinking on a metaphysical level. I'm sorry. The discussion about suffering is one that requires philosophical and intellectual thought. Since you were unable to discriminate between physical and mental anguish, you get moved to the short bus.

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
You're missing the point--the issue isn't about physical pain for Terri, it's about her being forced to live in a condition in which the overwhelming majority of people do not want to live, and in which, according to the person legally allowed to make decisions for her, she expressed herself she didn't want to live.

She expressed herself?

When?

I'm not missing the point, I think she should be allowed to die.

I just like poking holes in stupid arguments.

ACK!

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Tuberski
You said she was suffering.

Suffering implies pain.

No, suffering implies enduring something unpleasant. It could be pain, it could be mental duress, it could be a lot of things. The Schindlers are suffering during this, and it's not because they are in physical pain.

Any other bad arguments you have to make? You can bold them as much as you want, that's ok by me!

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by Sava
All you've proved is that you are incapable of thinking on a metaphysical level. I'm sorry. The discussion about suffering is one that requires philosophical and intellectual thought. Since you were unable to discriminate between physical and mental anguish, you get moved to the short bus.

And all you've proved is that you can't think logically.

Remember, underwear goes on before pants.

ACK!

[Mrs. Tuberski]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


That's a bull**** strawman itself. I even explicitely referenced the possibility she would feel pain while she starves, hence my comment that I hoped the doctors would give her large doses of sedatives.

You're missing the point--the issue isn't about physical pain for Terri, it's about her being forced to live in a condition in which the overwhelming majority of people do not want to live, and in which, according to the person legally allowed to make decisions for her, she expressed herself she didn't want to live.

Who did she express that she didnt want to live to? the husband who has a gf and new kids? please give me a break those are his words not hers. I see nobody has answered why he just doesnt let her be and let her folks deal with her

[GePap]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Another person who can't understand a simple argument. I was wondering when you'd make an appearance...

I like seeing you flee like a rat off a sinking ship when whatever "arguement" you are trying to make sinks. Its funny, in a pathetic sort of sense. Fez is a better addition to this forum thank you. That is sad.

BUt enough talking to the kiddies. Don't want to get my first ever suspension over something like Drakie Pooh.

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


No, suffering implies enduring something unpleasant. It could be pain, it could be mental duress, it could be a lot of things. The Schindlers are suffering during this, and it's not because they are in physical pain.

Any other bad arguments you have to make? You can bold them as much as you want, that's ok by me!

See? Again, you can't see that I'm not making an argument, I'm refuting yours.

To me you are right, but for the wrong reasons.

ACK!

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Tuberski
She expressed herself?

When?

Good lord, have you read anything about the case? Michael Schiavo, her legal guardian, has said all along that she had expressed to him her desire that, should anything happen to put her in such a state, she should be allowed to die.

I'm not missing the point, I think she should be allowed to die.

I just like poking holes in stupid arguments.

Except you haven't done that, you've just made more stupid arguments of your own. It's easy to knock down strawmen, after all.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Tuberski
And all you've proved is that you can't think logically.

My statements are pure logic.

IF terry = conscious terry = suffering
THEN remove tube = end suffering

IF terry = braindead
THEN pull tube its just brain of mush

I know you may not be able to think about two things at once, or multitask, but it's pretty simple.

Remember, underwear goes on before pants.

ACK!

bah, I always go commando

[Drake Tungsten]

I like seeing you flee like a rat off a sinking ship when whatever "arguement" you are trying to make sinks.

When would you have ever seen that?

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by GePap
Of, and tubes me boy, if she is vegetative, she won;t suffer when the tube is pulled. IN fact, neither state should make a damn bit of difference if you are right. So what are you arguing exactly?

I'm not arguing anything, just pointing out that their reasoning is flawed.

ACK!

[GePap]

Originally posted by Mrs. Tuberski

Who did she express that she didnt want to live to? the husband who has a gf and new kids? please give me a break those are his words not hers. I see nobody has answered why he just doesnt let her be and let her folks deal with her

Unfortunately, that's imaterial to the case. Under the law of the land the husband makes that choice. Heck, IF she had left specific instructions, then this farce would have ended long ago, so it pretty clear she did not. I doubt in the mental state she was prior to the events that left her like this, she was going around making wills and plans for her death. Most people in their 30's don't.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Tuberski
See? Again, you can't see that I'm not making an argument, I'm refuting yours.

To me you are right, but for the wrong reasons.

ACK!

You haven't refuted my arguments, you've set up strawmen to argue against. Try again.